AI 资讯

Hey HN, A few months ago, I tried to automate some of my work with the popular AI agent OpenClaw, and then I quickly realized how difficult it is to get it to work with APIs and third-party services securely, which is essential for a lot of work-related tasks. Then I realized OpenClaw is more of a personal assistant and it was not designed to get actual work done as a coworker. So I started to build Valmis, an alternative to OpenClaw that works with more than 100 apps and services, with security

Artificial intelligence may have captured the public imagination through chatbots and image generators, but some of its most consequential use cases are unfolding far from consumer-facing tools. In industries where physical infrastructure, operational continuity, and safety are paramount, AI is becoming a core operating layer. With its sprawling industrial systems and constant stream of operational…

Even the most advanced enterprise systems are tethered to a costly paradox: manual bottlenecks that introduce critical errors, security risks, and slow innovation. These hidden operational anchors are the friction preventing your organization from realizing its full potential. The Challenge: Manual Bottlenecks in Modern Enterprise Operations In an era defined by cloud-native architectures, microservices, and declarative infrastructure, a persistent and costly paradox remains at the heart of enterprise operations. We have built systems capable of immense scale and resilience, yet they are often tethered to manual, human-driven processes that act as operational anchors. These bottlenecks aren't just minor inefficiencies; they are critical points of failure, introducing latency, human error, and security vulnerabilities into our most important workflows. They represent the friction that slows down innovation, drains resources, and prevents organizations from realizing the full potential of their digital investments. Before we can orchestrate an autonomous workspace, we must first dissect the anatomy of these manual constraints. Identifying the High Cost of Manual Invoice Reconciliation To ground this challenge in reality, consider a ubiquitous and deceptively complex business process: accounts payable invoice reconciliation. On the surface, it seems simple. In practice, it's a classic example of a high-friction, manual workflow that silently bleeds enterprise resources. The typical process is a gauntlet of context-switching and swivel-chair integration: An invoice arrives, often as a PDF attached to an email, with no standardized format. A finance professional must manually open the document and visually identify key data points: invoice number, date, vendor, line items, and total amount. They then pivot to an ERP system like SAP or NetSuite to find the corresponding Purchase Order (PO). Next, they might need to access a separate logistics or warehouse management syste

Why Our AI Agent Still Stumbles on Full-Stack Apps We've all been there. You're riding high on the AI hype, picturing your agent effortlessly spinning up features, leaving you free for higher-level architectural decisions. You feed it a prompt like, "Build me a simple user profile page with authentication, connected to a database, using Next.js and TypeScript." You hit enter, grab a coffee, and expect magic. More often than not, what you get back is… well, it's something . It might be syntactically correct, perhaps even impressive in parts. But when you try to integrate it, to make the pieces talk to each other harmoniously, it often feels like trying to connect a square peg to a round hole. The agent struggles, and frankly, so do we trying to fix its output. The Seams, Not Just the Parts: Why Full-Stack is More Than Sum of Its Halves In my experience, AI agents, especially Large Language Models, are fantastic at generating code for isolated problems. Need a React component? A SQL query? A utility function? They'll often nail it. But a full-stack application isn't just a collection of frontend, backend, and database parts. It's the intricate, often implicit, contracts between them. Think about a modern Next.js application. It’s a beautifully complex dance: Server Components vs. Client Components: This paradigm shift fundamentally changes where state lives, where data is fetched, and how interactivity is handled. An AI might generate a useState hook inside a Server Component, completely missing the architectural intent. Data Fetching Strategies: getServerSideProps , getStaticProps , route handlers , fetch directly in Server Components – each has specific implications for caching, performance, and where your data lives at runtime. An AI might pick an inefficient or incorrect strategy based on a simplified prompt. Type Safety Across Boundaries: TypeScript is a lifesaver, but defining types that perfectly mirror your database schema, API responses, and frontend state re

The company now expects to ship a few thousand more vehicles by the end of 2026 than it previously expected, after launching its R2 SUV last month.

Originally published on productize.life . Quick answer: pm-skills is a marketplace of around 68 Claude skills for product management across 9 plugins, from strategy and discovery to market research and AI shipping. It is built by Pawel Huryn, author of the Product Compass newsletter. Each skill is not a loose prompt but a named, sourced framework, and one of them audits the gap between documentation and code, a PM lens built for the era of AI-written code. Last week I was reading through a run of repos that pack product work into skills. Some pick one topic and go deep. This one does the opposite: it is the broadest of the bunch. It is called pm-skills, by Pawel Huryn, the author of the Product Compass newsletter. He packs almost the entire product management craft into around 68 skills across 9 plugins, from setting strategy, running discovery, and researching the market, to analyzing data, executing, and shipping software that AI wrote. Usually something this broad ends up shallow. But when I actually opened it, it was not, and one skill in particular made me stop and look for a while , because it covers an angle that only recently became necessary in the era where AI writes code for us. I will tell it in three parts, starting with what it is , then why it is not just a prompt box , and closing with lessons for anyone building products . Terms, gathered once, right here skill a ready-made set of instructions an AI agent (such as Claude Code) can invoke, like a shortcut that wraps one way of doing a task. framework a ready-made way of thinking from the PM world, such as SWOT, JTBD, or RICE, that you once had to read a book to use well. plugin (category) a group of skills that belong to the same topic, such as the discovery category or the go-to-market category. PRD a product spec document that says what will be built, for whom, and how success is measured. Part 1: What pm-skills is It is a marketplace of around 68 Claude skills for PM, organized into 9 plugins, eac

Originally published on productize.life . Quick answer: gstack is an open-source (MIT) skill set that Garry Tan, president of Y Combinator, builds with every day. It turns Claude Code into a team of 23 specialists, CEO, engineers, designers, QA, and a release engineer, forcing every change through a multi-lens review before shipping. The point is not speed; it is taste written into software. Last week I was going through a repo that collects skills for coding, several of them. Most share one theme: helping AI write code in a systematic way, and faster. But one made me stop longer than the rest, called gstack, for two reasons. One: its owner, Garry Tan, president and CEO of Y Combinator, took the stack he actually builds with every day and opened it for free. Two: it does not sell "code faster," it sells "review before you ship." Once I actually opened it, it was not just a toolbox but one of the clearest examples of an idea I have been interested in for a while. On the day AI can write code very fast, the bottleneck of the work is no longer speed. I will tell it in three parts, starting with what it is , then what gstack believes , and closing with lessons for people who build products, not just people who write code . Terms, gathered here in one place agentic coding letting an AI agent run the coding work in its own steps, from planning to writing to review to shipping, not just autocompleting a line at a time. skill a packaged set of instructions an AI agent (like Claude Code) can call, like a shortcut that wraps one way of doing one thing. review lens reviewing one piece of work from several roles, for example as a CEO, an engineer, a designer. taste the sense and judgment of what is good and what is bad, what to build and what not to ship. The part that is still human. Part 1: What gstack is Garry Tan describes gstack in the README plainly, as the way he works. "It turns Claude Code into a virtual engineering team: a CEO who rethinks the product, an eng manager

If you're anything like me, your Chrome toolbar probably looks like a collection of tiny puzzle pieces. Grammar checker. Screenshot tool. Summarizer. Writing assistant. Code explainer. Translator. Email helper. At one point I had more than a dozen extensions installed. Chrome became slower, pages loaded later, and every extension wanted permission to "read and change all your data." Then I started experimenting with AI tools instead. Not everything was better—but some things surprised me. Here's what I learned after replacing most of my browser extensions with AI. 1. Grammar Checkers I used to rely on grammar extensions that constantly underlined my writing. Now I simply paste my draft into an AI assistant and ask: Improve grammar while keeping my writing style. The biggest advantage isn't fixing mistakes—it's preserving tone. Traditional grammar tools often make everything sound the same. AI can make your writing cleaner without removing your personality. 2. Article Summarizers This was probably the easiest replacement. Instead of installing a summarizer extension, I paste the article and ask: Summarize in 5 bullet points Give me the key takeaways Explain it like I'm a beginner What important details are missing? The last prompt is especially useful because summaries sometimes leave out important context. 3. Code Explanation This has become one of my favorite AI use cases. Instead of searching Stack Overflow for every unfamiliar function, I simply paste the code and ask: Explain this line by line Why was this approach chosen? Is there a better alternative? What's the time complexity? The answers aren't always perfect, but they're often enough to understand what's happening before diving into documentation. 4. Writing Commit Messages This is something I didn't expect AI to help with. Instead of writing: fixed stuff I can paste my git diff and ask for a concise commit message. Example: feat: add JWT authentication middleware fix: resolve login redirect loop refactor:

Every major cloud provider sells a key management service, and most sell a "bring your own key" option layered on top, marketed as the difference between trusting the provider and trusting yourself. The pitch is clean. The mechanics underneath are not, and the part that actually determines who can read your data is rarely the part the sales page shows you. If you've provisioned storage on AWS, Google Cloud, or Azure in the last few years, you've seen the encryption-at-rest checkbox: "encrypt with a key you manage." It sounds like a meaningful control. In practice it's three different architectures wearing the same marketing label, and they don't provide the same guarantee. What a KMS Actually Does A cloud Key Management Service is a hosted service that generates, stores, and performs operations with cryptographic keys on your behalf. When you ask a KMS to encrypt something, in most cases the plaintext key material never leaves the service's boundary. What you get back is a ciphertext blob and, for envelope encryption schemes, a wrapped data key you can use locally. The design goal is real: keys shouldn't sit in application memory or config files where a compromised host can grab them. The question that matters is not "does a KMS exist in this architecture" but "who can invoke it, and under what legal or operational conditions." That's where customer-managed keys and bring-your-own-key start to diverge in ways the naming doesn't make obvious. Customer-Managed Keys vs Bring-Your-Own-Key Customer-managed keys (CMK) means the key was generated inside the provider's KMS, under your account, and you control the access policy: who can use it, when it rotates, whether it can be disabled. The key material itself still lives entirely inside the provider's infrastructure. You never see the raw bytes. You're managing permissions on a key you didn't generate and can't export. Bring-your-own-key (BYOK) means you generate the key material yourself, outside the provider's environme

You built a system to surface information so a person could decide. Somewhere it started deciding for them — the output stopped saying "here's what the documents show" and started saying "you should do X." Nobody designed that drift. An LLM, when asked a question, produces an answer-shaped thing, and an answer easily becomes a verdict. What everyone tries A prompt instruction: "Don't make recommendations." "Only state what's in the documents." People add the line and assume the boundary is enforced. Why it doesn't work A prompt instruction is a request, not a guardrail. The model follows it most of the time, then on the input that matters produces a confident recommendation anyway, because nothing structurally prevents it. "Please don't make recommendations" is to a guardrail what a sticky note saying "please don't enter" is to a locked door. And the stakes are higher than they look. When output drifts from evidence to verdict, accountability moves. As long as the system returns evidence and a human decides, the human owns the decision. The moment the system returns a verdict and the human defers, the system is deciding things it was never validated to decide — and when one is wrong, accountability is a blank. High-stakes fields separate evidence extraction from judgment on purpose; most RAG systems erase that line by default. The one shift Decide what the output is and enforce it structurally. An output should declare itself: answer, evidence, missing facts, or out-of-scope. "Return decision material, not a decision" has to live in the output contract and in gates — not in a polite request to the model. The system supplies frames; the human supplies verdicts. This is the output boundary — one of three places production RAG dies. Read the full version on my blog , where this connects to the RAG Failure Diagnosis Kit for teams debugging production RAG.

Build a Real-Time Crypto Trading Dashboard with Python, WebSockets, and React Real-time data is the difference between catching a move and reading about it later. This tutorial walks through a minimal but complete stack: a Python WebSocket client pulling live prices, a simple signal generator, and a React frontend displaying everything. You will end up with a dashboard that shows live Binance prices, basic momentum signals, and auto-updates without polling. Why this stack Binance provides a clean WebSocket API for tickers and trades. Python handles the backend connection and lightweight analysis. React keeps the UI reactive and simple to extend. No heavy frameworks, no paid data feeds. Prerequisites Python 3.11+ Node 20+ A Binance API key (read-only is fine for prices) Step 1: Python price stream Install the client library: pip install python-binance pandas Create price_stream.py : import asyncio import json from binance import AsyncClient , BinanceSocketManager import pandas as pd from datetime import datetime async def main (): client = await AsyncClient . create () bm = BinanceSocketManager ( client ) ts = bm . trade_socket ( ' BTCUSDT ' ) async with ts as tscm : while True : res = await tscm . recv () price = float ( res [ ' p ' ]) qty = float ( res [ ' q ' ]) ts = datetime . fromtimestamp ( res [ ' T ' ] / 1000 ) print ( f " { ts } | BTCUSDT { price : . 2 f } | { qty : . 4 f } BTC " ) if __name__ == " __main__ " : asyncio . run ( main ()) Run it: python price_stream.py You should see a live feed of trades. Keep this running as your data source. Step 2: Add a simple momentum signal Extend the script to calculate a 20-trade rolling average and flag when price deviates more than 0.3%: # inside the loop, after parsing res prices . append ( price ) if len ( prices ) > 20 : prices . pop ( 0 ) avg = sum ( prices ) / len ( prices ) deviation = ( price - avg ) / avg * 100 if abs ( deviation ) > 0.3 : print ( f " ⚡ Signal: { deviation : + . 2 f } % from 20-trade avg " )

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology. LLMs are stuck in a groupthink groove. This startup is trying to get them out. Open up your chatbot of choice—Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini—and type “Give me a random number between 1…

Stop Treating Databases Like Dumb Storage! A Modern Approach to Data Layer Optimization Introduction In the rapidly evolving landscape of cloud-native applications, the database often remains the last bastion of outdated architectural thinking. Too many development teams, even in 2026, treat their databases as little more than dumb storage – a simple receptacle for data. This oversight invariably leads to an insidious problem: what was once perceived as a cost-saving cloud server rapidly transforms into an expensive, resource-hungry bottleneck that devours compute cycles, memory, and, most critically, developer sanity. The knee-jerk reaction to performance woes—throwing more hardware at an unoptimized SQL database or poorly designed NoSQL schema—is not scalable backend design; it's procrastination. This approach might temporarily mask symptoms, but it fundamentally ignores the root cause, leading to spiraling costs and increasing technical debt. Modern backend design demands a paradigm shift: treating your data layer as a strategic, highly optimized component rather than a generic storage utility. The path to true scalability, resilience, and cost-efficiency begins with intelligent data management from day one. Architectural Walkthrough: Embracing Smart Data Strategies Instead of "sharding your problems" through reactive, unguided horizontal scaling, embrace smart data partitioning . This isn't just about distributing data; it's about strategically organizing it to align with your application's access patterns and business domains. 1. Smart Data Partitioning & Query Patterns: Imagine an e-commerce application. Instead of sharding all orders data uniformly, consider partitioning by a natural business key, like customer_id or product_category . This ensures that common queries (e.g., "get all orders for customer X") are localized to a single partition, minimizing cross-partition operations. // Conceptual Service for Order Management class OrderService { private final

👋 Hey dev.to community, Last week I shipped a workflow I built for a friend who runs an online shop. He called me again a few days later with a new headache: he's drowning in Purchase Orders. Every single one gets opened by hand, the data typed into a Google Sheet, and that sheet uploaded into his ERP to update his numbers. Hours a week, pure copy-paste. So I built him something to kill that step. He uploads the PO PDFs through a simple n8n form, and a structured Google Sheet comes out the other end. He just downloads it and pushes it to his ERP. How it's set up: The form accepts multiple PDFs at once , so he can batch a whole stack instead of doing them one by one. Each PO loops through on its own so nothing gets jumbled. The extraction runs on the easybits Extractor node ( @easybits/n8n-nodes-extractor ). I set the field structure up in two parts: the header fields that appear once per PO (PO number, PO date, delivery date, mark for, PR number, reference no), plus an articles array for the line items, each holding article name, unit and quantity. That array is the key bit, it gives you one entry per row of the PO table, and I flatten it into one sheet row per article with the header details repeated on each. Two things I added because real documents are messy: Error flagging . If any field comes back empty, the completion screen lists which document and which field didn't extract cleanly, so he knows exactly which PO to double-check instead of trusting it blindly. Document name column . The original filename lands in the sheet next to every row, so if a number looks off he can jump straight back to the source PDF. Workflow JSON is on GitHub: https://github.com/felix-sattler-easybits/n8n-workflows/blob/c38749a68fd6ea4ae6ebff41789d35cceaacdef1/easybits-purchase-order-extractor-workflow/easybits_purchase_order_extractor_workflow.json Anyone else automating document-to-sheet data entry? Curious how you're handling the messy multi-line rows – that was the trickiest par

The conversation around Agentic AI often focuses on one goal: making agents more autonomous. More tools. More reasoning. More planning. More independence. It sounds like progress. But is more autonomy always the right answer? As software engineers, we rarely optimize for "more." We don't build distributed systems when a monolith is sufficient. We don't introduce microservices because they're fashionable. We choose architectures that balance capability with complexity. The same principle applies to AI agents. The question isn't "How autonomous can my agent be?" It's "How autonomous should my agent be?" Autonomy Is a Design Decision When people talk about autonomy, they often think of it as a feature that an agent either has or doesn't have. In reality, autonomy is a design decision. Every time we allow an agent to make another decision on its own, we are increasing its responsibility. That responsibility comes with benefits, but it also introduces new engineering challenges. More autonomy means the agent can adapt to situations that weren't anticipated during development. It can make progress toward a goal without being guided through every step. At the same time, it becomes harder to predict, validate, debug, and trust. Autonomy isn't free. Thinking in Terms of an Autonomy Spectrum Instead of treating autonomy as a binary concept, it helps to think of it as a spectrum. At one end are systems that simply generate responses. They have no authority to take action. As autonomy increases, agents begin suggesting actions, invoking tools, planning multiple steps, and eventually deciding how to achieve a goal with minimal human involvement. The important observation is that every step along this spectrum increases both capability and complexity. That's why the objective shouldn't be to reach the highest level. It should be to stop at the level your problem actually requires. More Autonomy Isn't Always Better Imagine building an internal HR assistant. Its primary responsibil